The David Pakter Charges

Exclusive from David Pakter.

The reason the NYC DOE is terrified to have a secretly made tape of a meeting with Principal Hilda Nieto played at an OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TRIAL is because the tape proves that the charges were intentionally fabricated by SCI and the NYC DOE when it was known by the NYC DOE I had discussed my decades long Academic Incentive Awards initiative program in great detail with Principal Nieto during a (tape recorded) Meeting in her Office.

The Incentive Awards were also discussed in numerous letters to the Regional NYC DOE office at 333 Seventh Ave. in Manhattan.
____________________________________________________

Below are the actual Charges made against David Pakter

by the NYC DOE and the responses to each "Charge".

Please note my response to each charge appears in CAPITAL LETTERS.

__________________________________________________________________

OFFICIAL NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION CHARGES AGAINST DAVID PAKTER

SPECIFICATIONS

( Important Note: Virtually all of the following charges, (except the charges relating to attendance at the small windowless Rubber Room located in Harlem), will be shown and proven at Trial to be either outright lies or distortions of fact to such an extreme degree as to make the charges little more than knowing falsehoods.)

NOTE ALL MY RESPONSES & COMMENTS ARE IN UPPER CASE/CAPS

______________________________________________________________

Below is a Verbatim Copy of ALL NYC DOE Charges against David Pakter

DAVID PAKTER (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") is a tenured teacher, under File # 407530, Social Security # XXX-XX-XXXX, formerly assigned to The High School of Fashion Industries in Manhattan. During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent engaged in misconduct and was neglectful of his duties as follows:

In Particular:

SPECIFICATION 1: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent promoted his and /or his family's watch business during school hours.

I INFORMED STUDENTS (AS I HAVE FOR 3 DECADES) THAT ANYONE WITH A 90% AVERAGE WOULD EARN A WATCH DESIGNED BY PAKTER

______________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 2: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent gave watches as gifts to students during school hours.

YES, YES AND YES- LIKE JOEL KLEIN GIVING OUT CELL PHONES

______________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 3: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent gave a watch to School Aide during school hours.

ABSOLUTELY YES- I GAVE A WATCH TO A MINIMUM WAGE SCHOOL AIDE DURING MY LUNCH BREAK FOR HER SON AS I KNEW SHE HAD A VERY LIMITED BUDGET TO BUY HIM A BIRTHDAY GIFT.

ISN'T THAT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR DO I NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE NYC DOE EVEN TO GIVE SOMEONE A GIFT.

_____________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 4: In or about October and/or November of 2006, during class time, Respondent:

(a) Talked about his and/or his family's watch business.

(b) Provided the watch website address.

(c) Showed students a book and/or a brochure and/or a catalog of watches.

(d) Said words to the effect that he would give a watch to any student who achieved a gradepoint average of 90% or better.

(e) Showed two watches to students.

(f) Talked about his personal life.

(g) Said words to the effect that he was fired from The High School of Art and Design for being a whistleblower.

I STRONGLY ENCOURAGED STUDENTS TO STRIVE TO GET ON HONOR ROLL AND PROMISED THEM FASHION ACCESSORIES AS AN INCENTIVE AS I HAVE DONE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS TO THE DELIGHT AND DEEP APPRECIATION OF COUNTLESS NYC DOE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS.

ALL ABOVE FALL WITHIN MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS RE FREE SPEECH.

_____________________________________________________________

(h) Showed the class an "R" rated movie.

FILM WAS R-RATED EXACTLY FOR THE SAME REASONS AS "SCHINDLER'S LIST", "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN", "THE PIANIST", ETC ETC ARE, R-RATED AS WELL AS THE DOZENS OF AWARD WINNING FILMS I HAVE SHOWN TO CLASSES FOR 37 YEARS WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF PEERS AND COUNTLESS NYC DOE PRINCIPALS I SERVED WITH DISTINCTION WHO RESPECTED MY GOOD JUDGEMENT TO SCREEN FILMS THAT CONTAINED STRONG LIFE LESSONS.

IMPORTANT NOTE: THE ABOVE ABSURD CHARGE ALSO BRINGS UP POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS PERTAINING TO CENSORSHIP. ALSO TARGETTING TEACHERS BY ACCUSING THEM OF SHOWING A FILM IS AN OLD AND TIRED TACTIC OF THE NYC DOE.

THUS SUBCHARGE (h) VIOLATES AND GIVES RISE TO AT LEAST TWO CLEARLY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS CHARGE HAS BEEN DROPPED BY THE CITY

_____________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 5: In or about November of 2006, Respondent had two trees delivered to the school despite being previously told by Assistant Principal Giovanni Raschilla to wait until he discussed the matter with Principal Hilda Nieto.

THE ABOVE TOTALLY AND INTENTIONALLY DISTORTS FACTS

- I HAND CARRIED TWO SMALL ARTIFICIAL PLANTS IN WICKER BASKETS TO SCHOOL ON MY LUNCH HOUR WHICH I PLACED OUTSIDE DOORS TO THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM WHERE EVERYONE AGREED THEY LOOKED TOTALLY GREAT AND VASTLY IMPROVED THE AMBIANCE OF THE SCHOOL LOBBY.

VERY INTERESTINGLY NO WHERE IN RICHARD CONDON'S SPECIALLY PREPARED SCI REPORT PREPARED FOR CHANCELLOR JOEL KLEIN IS IT MENTIONED THAT ON THE SAME DAY I PLACED THE TWO PLANTS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM I ALSO HAND DELIVERED A LARGE BEAUTIFUL SILK PLANT, ALSO IN A WICKER BASKET TO PRINCIPAL HILDA NIETO'S OFFICE AND GAVE THE PLANT TO HER SECRETARY, MS. TUCKER REQUESTING SHE GIVE THE GIFT TO THE PRINCIPAL TO DECORATE HER OFFICE.

THE PLANT GIVEN TO THE PRINCIPAL WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE SCI REPORT AND I WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH GIVING PRINCIPAL HILDA NIETO A SILK PLANT BUT I WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING A GIFT TO A MINIMUM WAGE SCHOOL AIDE.

NIETO NEVER THANKED ME, VERBALLY OR IN WRITING BECAUSE SHE KNEW THAT IT WOULD PREVENT ANY PLANT CHARGES FROM BEING MADE AGAINST ME.

ALSO THE SCI REPORT TO KLEIN DID NOT MENTION THAT I BOUGHT AND HAND DELIVED MYSELF, SEVERAL PLANTS IN BASKETS TO THE MAIN SCHOOL OFFICE WHERE I HAD TO SIT ALL DAY WHEN I WAS NOT COVERING CLASSES AS AN ATR SUBSTITUTE TEACHER.

ON THE DAY I WAS REMOVED, THE PLANTS I HAD PERSONALLY PURCHASED, PAID FOR AND PERSONALLY DELIVERED AND INSTALLED AT THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE SCHOOL WERE STILL THERE EXACTLY WHERE I HAD PERSONALLY PLACED THEM

NOTE THAT THE PLANT GIFTS TO THE PRINCIPAL'S PRIVATE OFFICE AND ALSO TO HER MAIN SCHOOL OFFICE ON A DIFFERENT FLOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING, WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 3020-a SPECIFICATIONS.

THINK ABOUT HOW EVIL AND MACHIAVELLIAN THAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE AND THE NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION IN GENERAL.

BUT IN ANY EVENT ISN'T IT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME FASHION AS ANY OTHER TEACHER IN NYC WHO DECIDES TO DECORATE HIS/HER CLASSROOM AND/OR SCHOOL.

IN SHORT WE ADDRESS HERE THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

SHOULD SOME TEACHERS BE ALLOWED TO BRING A PLANT TO SCHOOL AND NOT OTHERS?

NOTE: THE WEEK I WAS REMOVED I WAS ABLE TO GET GIOVANNI RASCHILLA, MY A.P. ON TAPE ADMITTING TO UFT CHAPTER LEADER JACK SANCHEZ THAT HE, RASCHILLA, KNEW THE WHOLE PLANT BUSINESS WAS ILLEGAL AND THAT HE WOULD REMOVE THE PLANT LETTERS FROM MY FILE IMMEDIATELY AS UFT SANCHEZ DEMANDED.

____________________________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 6: Respondent's actions caused widespread negative publicity and notoriety to the High School of Fashion Industries and the New York City Department of Education in general when his unprofessional behavior was referenced in the UFT Newspaper.

THIS IS THE FAMOUS CHARGE THAT RANDI WEINGARTEN ORDERED NYSUT TO WRITE A PROTEST TO CHANCELLOR JOEL KLEIN ON OCTOBER 24, 2007 TO WHICH KLEIN NEVER RESPONDED BUT WHICH THE NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION LATER DROPPED RATHER THAN BE FORCED TO FIGHT THE UFT IN COURT OVER A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.

SPECIFICATION 7: During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent was absent ninety-eight (98) times from work. (Rubber Room)

SPECIFICATION 8: During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent worked a partial day fifteen (15) times. (Rubber Room)

HARLEM RUBBER ROOM WAS A VERY SMALL ROOM ON 125TH STREET, WITH NO WINDOWS, NO IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DRINKING WATER, BARE WALLS UNTIL I TRIED TO HANG A FEW PICTURES AND WAS ORDERED NOT TO DO SO AND THE MUSEUM PRINTS REMOVED.

AND WORST OF ALL THIS SMALL ROOM CONVEYED TO THE PEOPLE HOUSED THERE A SENSE OF CLAUSTROPHOBIA AND INCARCERATION

A UFT HIRED AIR SPECIALIST, HIRED BY UFT SPECIAL REP-KLAUS BORNEMANN, USING SOPHISTICATED AIR TESTING EQUIPMENT WROTE IN HIS AIR QUALITY REPORT THAT THE CEILING VENTILATORS AT TIMES WERE BLOWING AIR OF SUBSTANDARD AIR QUALITY INTO THE ROOM.

************************************************************

THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION AND IS THE REASON I STOPPED REPORTING TO THE SMALL WINDOWLESS RUBBER ROOM IN HARLEM.

___________________________________________________________

Please Note: The fact that the DOE would certainly deny that any, or all of these charges do not violate any of my Constitutional and/or First Amendment rights, (which is to be totally expected), does not make such an assertion and/or position true. It is only by challenging established customs and perceptions of what does and does not violate the Laws of the Land, that "old" laws are struck down, and new Laws and new legal precedents- established.

David Pakter